Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Company, under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), evaluated the effectiveness of its “disclosure controls and procedures,” as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Exchange Act, as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. Based on that evaluation, our CEO and CFO have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of September 30, 2022, to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and include controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in such reports is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our CEO and CFO, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting

There were no changes that occurred during the fiscal quarter covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

70 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2022 Form 10-Q

PART II: OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Company is involved in certain claims, suits and legal proceedings in the normal course of business. The Company has accrued for litigation and claims when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company believes, based upon information it currently possesses and taking into account established reserves for estimated liabilities and its insurance coverage, that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings and actions is unlikely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements. It is reasonably possible, however, that some matters could be decided unfavorably to the Company and could require the Company to pay damages or make expenditures in amounts that could be material, but cannot be estimated as of September 30, 2022.

In December 2001, Grid Corporation of Odisha (“GRIDCO”) served a notice to arbitrate pursuant to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 on the Company, AES Orissa Distribution Private Limited (“AES ODPL”), and Jyoti Structures (“Jyoti”) pursuant to the terms of the shareholders agreement between GRIDCO, the Company, AES ODPL, Jyoti and the Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (“CESCO”), an affiliate of the Company. In the arbitration, GRIDCO asserted that a comfort letter issued by the Company in connection with the Company's indirect investment in CESCO obligates the Company to provide additional financial support to cover all of CESCO's financial obligations to GRIDCO. GRIDCO appeared to be seeking approximately $189 million in damages, plus undisclosed penalties and interest, but a detailed alleged damage analysis was not filed by GRIDCO. The Company counterclaimed against GRIDCO for damages. In June 2007, a 2-to-1 majority of the arbitral tribunal rendered its award rejecting GRIDCO's claims and holding that none of the respondents, the Company, AES ODPL, or Jyoti, had any liability to GRIDCO. The respondents' counterclaims were also rejected. A majority of the tribunal later awarded the respondents, including the Company, some of their costs relating to the arbitration. GRIDCO filed challenges of the tribunal's awards with the local Indian court. GRIDCO's challenge of the costs award has been dismissed by the court, but its challenge of the liability award remains pending. A hearing on the liability award has not taken place to date. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

Pursuant to their environmental audit, AES Sul and AES Florestal discovered 200 barrels of solid creosote waste and other contaminants at a pole factory that AES Florestal had been operating. The conclusion of the audit was that a prior operator of the pole factory, Companhia Estadual de Energia (“CEEE”), had been using those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at the factory. On their initiative, AES Sul and AES Florestal communicated with Brazilian authorities and CEEE about the adoption of containment and remediation measures. In March 2008, the State Attorney of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil filed a public civil action against AES Sul, AES Florestal and CEEE seeking an order requiring the companies to mitigate the contaminated area located on the grounds of the pole factory and an indemnity payment of approximately R$6 million ($1 million). In October 2011, the State Attorney filed a request for an injunction ordering the defendant companies to contain and remove the contamination immediately. The court granted injunctive relief on October 18, 2011, but determined that only CEEE was required to perform the removal work. In May 2012, CEEE began the removal work in compliance with the injunction. The case is now awaiting judgment. The removal and remediation costs are estimated to be approximately R$15 million to R$60 million ($3 million to $11 million), and there could be additional costs which cannot be estimated at this time. In June 2016, the Company sold AES Sul to CPFL Energia S.A. and as part of the sale, AES Guaiba, a holding company of AES Sul, retained the potential liability relating to this matter. The Company believes that there are meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In September 2015, AES Southland Development, LLC and AES Redondo Beach, LLC filed a lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission (the “CCC”) over the CCC's determination that the site of AES Redondo Beach included approximately 5.93 acres of CCC-jurisdictional wetlands. The CCC has asserted that AES Redondo Beach has improperly installed and operated water pumps affecting the alleged wetlands in violation of the California Coastal Act and Redondo Beach Local Coastal Program. Potential outcomes of the CCC determination could include an order requiring AES Redondo Beach to perform a restoration and/or pay fines or penalties. AES Redondo Beach believes that it has meritorious arguments concerning the underlying CCC determination, but there can be no assurances that it will be successful. On March 27, 2020, AES Redondo Beach, LLC sold the site to an unaffiliated third-party purchaser that assumed the obligations contained within these proceedings. On May 26, 2020, CCC staff sent AES a NOV directing AES to submit a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) application for the removal of the water pumps within the alleged wetlands. AES has submitted the CDP to the permitting authority, the City of Redondo Beach (“the City”), with respect to AES’ plans to disable or remove the pumps. The NOV also directed AES to submit technical analysis regarding additional water pumps located within onsite electrical vaults

71 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2022 Form 10-Q

and a CDP application for their continued operation. AES has responded to the CCC, providing the requested analysis and seeking further discussion with the agency regarding the CDP. On October 14, 2020, the City deemed the CDP application to be complete and indicated a public hearing will be required, at which time AES must present additional information and analysis on the pumps within the alleged wetlands and the onsite electrical vaults.

In October 2015, AES Indiana received an NOV alleging violations of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), the Indiana State Implementation Plan (“SIP”), and the Title V operating permit related to alleged particulate and opacity violations at Petersburg Station Unit 3. In addition, in February 2016, AES Indiana received an NOV from the EPA alleging violations of New Source Review and other CAA regulations, the Indiana SIP, and the Title V operating permit at Petersburg Station. On August 31, 2020, AES Indiana reached a settlement with the EPA, the DOJ and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”), resolving these purported violations of the CAA at Petersburg Station. The settlement agreement, in the form of a proposed judicial consent decree, was approved and entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on March 23, 2021, and includes, among other items, the following requirements: annual caps on NOx and SO2 emissions and more stringent emissions limits than AES Indiana's current Title V air permit; payment of civil penalties totaling $1.5 million; a $5 million environmental mitigation project consisting of the construction and operation of a new, non-emitting source of generation at the site; expenditure of $0.3 million on a state-only environmentally beneficial project to preserve local, ecologically-significant lands; and retirement of Units 1 and 2 prior to July 1, 2023. If AES Indiana does not meet the retirement obligation, it must install a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction System (“SNCR”) on Unit 4.

In October 2017, the Maritime Prosecution Office from Valparaíso issued a ruling alleging responsibility by AES Andes for the presence of coal waste on Ventanas beach and proposed a fine before the Maritime Governor, of approximately $395,000. AES Andes submitted its statement of defense, denying the allegations. In May 2021, AES Andes was notified of an amended Opinion of the Maritime Prosecution Office which extends the alleged liability to a third party and reduces the proposed fine to AES Andes to approximately $372,000. On August 18, 2021, the Maritime Governor issued a resolution affirming the proposed fine, and on September 8, AES Andes filed an administrative action with the Maritime Governor requesting reconsideration of the fine. On December 28, 2021, the resolution rejecting the reinstatement appeal was notified, and on January 17, 2022, AES Andes filed an appeal against that ruling. In April 2022, Puerto Ventanas requested that the Maritime Authority join this proceeding with a parallel proceeding; however, the request was rejected. In May 2022, the General Director of the Maritime Territory and Merchant Marine of the Chilean Navy rejected AES Andes’ appeal and imposed a fine of $341,363. AES Andes will continue with administrative appeals, but the fine must be payed, as it is not suspended during the pendency of the remaining appeals. AES Andes believes that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations; however, there are no assurances it will be successful.

In December 2018, a lawsuit was filed in Dominican Republic civil court against the Company, AES Puerto Rico, and three other AES affiliates. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of over 100 Dominican claimants, living and deceased, and appears to seek relief relating to CCRs that were delivered to the Dominican Republic in 2004. The lawsuit generally alleges that the CCRs caused personal injuries and deaths and demands $476 million in alleged damages. The lawsuit does not identify, or provide any supporting information concerning, the alleged injuries of the claimants individually. Nor does the lawsuit provide any information supporting the demand for damages or explaining how the quantum was derived. The relevant AES companies believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously in this proceeding; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

In February 2019, a separate lawsuit was filed in Dominican Republic civil court against the Company, AES Puerto Rico, two other AES affiliates, and an unaffiliated company and its principal. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of over 200 Dominican claimants, living and deceased, and appears to seek relief relating to CCRs that were delivered to the Dominican Republic in 2003 and 2004. The lawsuit generally alleges that the CCRs caused personal injuries and deaths and demands over $900 million in alleged damages. The lawsuit does not identify or provide any supporting information concerning the alleged injuries of the claimants individually, nor does the lawsuit provide any information supporting the demand for damages or explaining how the quantum was derived. In August 2020, at the request of the relevant AES companies, the case was transferred to a different civil court. Preliminary hearings have taken place and are ongoing. The relevant AES companies believe that they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against them and will defend themselves vigorously in this proceeding; however, there can be no assurances that they will be successful in their efforts.

In October 2019, the Superintendency of the Environment (the "SMA") notified AES Andes of certain alleged breaches associated with the environmental permit of the Ventanas Complex, initiating a sanctioning process through Exempt Resolution N° 1 / ROL D-129-2019. The alleged charges include exceeding generation limits, failing to reduce emissions during episodes of poor air quality, exceeding limits on discharges to the sea, and exceeding

72 | The AES Corporation | September 30, 2022 Form 10-Q

noise limits. AES Andes has submitted a proposed “Compliance Program” to the SMA for the Ventanas Complex. The latest version of this Compliance Program was submitted on May 26, 2021. On December 30, 2021, the Compliance Program was approved by the SMA. However an ex officio action was brought by the SMA due to alleged exceedances of generation limits, which would require the Company to reduce SO2, NOx and PM emissions in order to achieve the emissions offset established in the Compliance Program. On January 6, 2022, AES Andes filed a reposition with the SMA seeking modification of the means for compliance with the ex officio action. The reposition filing is currently under review by the SMA. The effects of the ex officio action are suspended until the reposition is resolved, but the SMA ruling is otherwise unaffected. Fines are possible if the SMA determines there is an unsatisfactory execution of the Compliance Program. The cost of proposed Compliance Program is approximately $10.8 million.

In March 2020, Mexico’s Comisión Federal de Electricidad (“CFE”) served an arbitration demand upon AES Mérida III. CFE makes allegations that AES Mérida III is in breach of its obligations under a power and capacity purchase agreement (“Contract”) between the two parties, which allegations related to CFE’s own failure to provide fuel within the specifications of the Contract. CFE seeks to recover approximately $200 million in payments made to AES Mérida under the Contract as well as approximately $480 million in alleged damages for having to acquire power from alternative sources in the Yucatan Peninsula. AES Mérida has filed an answer denying liability to CFE and asserting a counterclaim for damages due to CFE’s breach of its obligations. The parties submitted their respective initial briefs and supporting evidence in December 2020. After additional briefing, the evidentiary hearing took place in November 2021. Closing arguments were heard in May 2022. The parties are awaiting the decision of the arbitration Tribunal. AES Mérida believes that it has meritorious defenses and claims and will assert them vigorously in the arbitration; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

On May 12, 2021, the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (the “Authority”) initiated an environmental audit at the Termoelectrica del Golfo (“TEG”) and Termoelectrica del Peñoles (“TEP”) thermal generating facilities. On July 15, 2022, TEG was notified of the resolution issued by the Authority, which alleges breaches of air emission regulations, including failure to submit reports. The resolution imposes a fine of $8,467,360 pesos (approximately USD $400,000). The facility filed a nullity judgment to challenge the resolution, and on September 8, 2022, a provisional injunction was granted by the Tribunal, subject to TEG’s presentation of a warranty, which could include a corporate guaranty or bail. The provisional injunction temporarily suspends the obligation to pay the fine while the Tribunal considers a definitive injunction, and potentially, a sentence dismissing the fine. No resolution for TEP’s audit has been issued. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these proceedings; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

In February 2022, a lawsuit was filed in Dominican Republic civil court against the Company. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of over 425 Dominican claimants, living and deceased, and appears to seek relief relating to CCRs that were delivered to the Dominican Republic in 2003 and 2004. The lawsuit generally alleges that the CCRs caused personal injuries and deaths and demands over $600 million in alleged damages. The lawsuit does not identify or provide any supporting information concerning the alleged injuries of the claimants individually. Nor does the lawsuit provide any information supporting the demand for damages or explaining how the quantum was derived. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in this proceeding; however, there can be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

On July 25, 2022, AES Puerto Rico, LP (“AES-PR”) received from the EPA an NOV alleging certain violations of the CAA at AES-PR’s coal-fired power facility in Guayama, Puerto Rico. The NOV alleges AES-PR exceeded an emission limit and did not continuously operate certain monitoring equipment, conduct certain analyses and testing, maintain complete records, and submit certain reports as required by the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The NOV further alleges AES-PR did not comply fully with the facility’s Title V operating permit. AES-PR is engaging in discussions with the EPA about the NOV. AES-PR will defend its interests, but we cannot predict the outcome of this matter at this time. However, settlements and litigated outcomes of CAA claims alleged against other coal-fired power plants have required companies to pay civil penalties and undertake remedial measures.